[hearsathought]

> It was nitpicky and aggressive, as well as offtopic.

What is aggressive about "Math, not Maths. You wouldn't called it Econs 101 would you?"? How is a comment directly about the headline offtopic? Nitpicky? Also every correction and truth could be construed as being nitpicky?

> You also posted repeatedly about it, which was particularly offtopic and tedious.

I didn't post repeatedly about it. I responded to each comment offering more information and detail.

No offense, but you are the one being nitpicky, aggressive and offtopic. Stop harrassing people commenting here in good faith and stop flagging them. Not to mention the other nonsense you guys are pulling here.

Here is an interesting quote that you may find useful.

"Conflict is essential to human life, whether between different aspects of oneself, between oneself and the environment, between different individuals or between different groups. It follows that the aim of healthy living is not the direct elimination of conflict, which is possible only by forcible suppression of one or other of its antagonistic components, but the toleration of it—the capacity to bear the tensions of doubt and of unsatisfied need and the willingness to hold judgement in suspense until finer and finer solutions can be discovered which integrate more and more the claims of both sides. It is the psychologist's job to make possible the acceptance of such an idea so that the richness of the varieties of experience, whether within the unit of the single personality or in the wider unit of the group, can come to expression."

Marion Milner, 'The Toleration of Conflict', Occupational Psychology, 17, 1, January 1943

[dang]

What was aggressive was the blunt and forceful way you issued the correction and then followed it with a snarky and personal question that was not really a question.

Some things you could have done instead which would have been less aggressive: (1) check whether "maths" vs. "math" is actually an error (e.g. like this: https://www.google.com/search?q=maths+vs+math&oq=maths+vs+ma...), (2) ask the other person why they said "maths" rather than "math", (3) bring up the analogy to "economics" in a curious way rather than as a hammer.

The fact that your correction was wrong (in the sense that the other person's spelling was perfectly correct British English) is actually beside the point here, because even if you had been right, the GP comment would not have been a good way to express it.

Re the Milner quote: I'm glad you noticed it! It is an endlessly fascinating and profound statement, and every time I happen to notice that it's in my HN profile I'm glad I put it there.

Don't forget, though, that of the two important words there (toleration and conflict), it is toleration (not conflict) which has first place. The question is what it means to tolerate conflict rather than denying or trying to exclude it.